Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
by federal authorities. but in the beginning, he will not be given the usual miranda warning about the right to remain silent. instead, the government will invoke a rule that allows questioning a suspect without giving advice of rights. >> there is a public safety exemption in cases of national security, and central charges involving acts of terrorism, and so government has that opportunity right now. >> the government invoked that same rule in the case of the so-called underwear bomber. as in his case, it allows questioning to learn of any potential plots or accomplices that could present a continuing threat. >> the first questions the fbi will focus on are specific threats that he might be aware of. likely, are there any other improvised explosive devices? were there other people working in the network? the sorts of things that go directly to whether or not there's a continuing threat to public safety. >> reporter: he'll face charges brought by the justice department, because terrorism is a federal crime with a trial in a regular civilian court. and as in other high profile terrorism cases
miranda warning about his right to remain silent. they will simply use a federal law, a rule, that says when there's an issue of public safety, they can use an exception to the miranda rule that allows them to find out if there's any imminent threats, any additional accomplices, any other plots, any other explosives out there. but that only lasts, say, maybe two days and then they'll have to give him his miranda warning. and the justice department says often even in cases like this people continue to talk anyway. >> even though he wasn't mirandized and that was a question that was asked last night at the briefing -- >> right. >> -- right after he was taken into custody, he doesn't lose his rights, right? >> well, he has -- that's right. i mean, he doesn't have to say -- he can't be compelled to talk. if he refuses -- if he just sits there and doesn't answer any questions, they can't make him answer the questions. but the one right that is sort of suspended is, normally speaking if the police ask -- if you're in custody and the police ask you questions without giving your miranda warning
incriminating evidence against him, there will be a necessity to advise him of his miranda warnings. they are probably discussing the timing, the first priority to protect the public. but they don't want to jeopardize their case. but there is no much evidence, my guess that will be a lesser consideration in their deliberations. >> you are right. the public safety exemption-- the interrogation has to be limited and focused. but that's not the case if he were to be declared an enemy combatant. now senator lindsay graham says he should be declared an enemy combatant so a thorough interrogation, a lengthy one without limits could be undertaken. would you agree with that? >> i know, i think it's hard to judge from a distance, without greater information. so, no, i wouldn't be calling to treat him as an enemy combatant without more information. the consequence is, you treat him like an enemy combatant, you may have a longer interview that may or may not give you better information than if you mirandize him. but it poses a real problem, in terms of prosecutes him and bringing him to judge.
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3